I had the same feeling about double weapons, such as two-bladed sword. Although there are some double weapons that seem plausible, such as ashandarei from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, which is basically quarterstaff-short sword combo. So,

1) This type of weapon would be pretty unusual in Golarion, right?

2) Would you consider too powerful to allow the player to enchant his two-bladed sword as two wands, or a staff? (My player had in mind some kind of ritual, using Weaponwand spell and appropriate wands as spell-components.)

3) There are no advanced firearms in Golarion, right?

3a) What about pepperbox pistol from UC, but with a mechanism that rotates the barrels? (That way you still have to reload it by hand, and it takes longer, but you get the same number of shots as with revolver and you don't need cartridges.) Or is this more appropriate as magic weapon (or clockwork weapon or whatever)?

1) If we haven't statted a weapon up yet, then yes, it would be pretty unusual.

2) Not if he's willing to pay the extra costs.

3) None you can buy at a shop, but I suspect there might be a few hidden somewhere in vaults or owned by powerful NPCs or the like.

3a) Same as 3 above... it could exist, but it's something that I would rather see show up as part of an adventure rather than in a player's companion type product.

What is it about an “Attack Action” that is a “specific kind of standard action” that makes it different than a typical Standard Action?

What exactly IS an “Attack Action”?

Where is Attack Action defined in the core rule book?

How can I reasonably be expected to adjudicate all the feats and abilities that use the term “Attack Action” when “Attack Action” has only been ambiguously defined as a “specific kind of standard action” in message board posts?

When you roll a d20 because you're attempting to hit a creature... THAT ROLL is your attack action, basically.

AND: We can't define every single term in the game. Some times we have to rely on common sense and context providing all the definition that's needed.

Whether or not we made the right choice in not specifically calling out what an "attack action" I can't say... but the fact that these boards exist helps with confusing parts I hope.

Hi James! I have a couple of questions about bardic performance, Spellsong, and Harmonic Spell.

Is the use of Spellsong to conceal a spell being cast a type of bardic performance? Can you do this at the same time as inspire courage, for example?

How does that interact with Harmonic Spell, since you're always casting a spell when you use a Spellsong performance type? It would seem that you would never actually pay the performance rounds if you had both feats. Considering it costs two feats (and for a bard!) I don't know if it's "too powerful", but I just want to make sure I understand the intent of the rules.

Or, am I way off and Spellsong isn't a type of performance, it just costs performance rounds for whatever reason, and can be used while maintaining another performance... in which case, how does that interact with Harmonic Spell?

Hi James! I have a couple of questions about bardic performance, Spellsong, and Harmonic Spell.

Is the use of Spellsong to conceal a spell being cast a type of bardic performance? That is, can you do this at the same time as inspire courage, for example?

How does that interact with Harmonic Spell, since you're always casting a spell when you use a Spellsong performance type, it would seem that you would never actually pay the performance rounds if you had both feats. Considering it costs two feats (and for a bard!) I don't know if it's "too powerful", but I just want to make sure I understand the intent of the rules.

Or, am I way off and Spellsong isn't a type of performance, it just costs performance rounds for whatever reason, and can be used while maintaining another performance... in which case, how does that interact with Harmonic spell?

Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?

Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.

An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.

An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.

Okay, now I'm confused. A few months ago, you said that an Attack Action was "a specific kind of standard action". Did something change between then and now? Am I just misunderstanding you? Is it really butter in spite of my disbelief? Why is the sad cebu sad? Okay, those last two questions might not matter, but I'm very confused about the rest.

Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?

Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.

An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.

An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.

Hmm… So essentially if a creature has a Gaze Attack, and unless that specific Gaze Attack does not state otherwise, Gaze in the Universal Monster Rules says it is an attack action, a Sea Hag could claw/claw/gaze for a full attack?

We had a discussion abot fear and remove fear in another section fot eh forum and this was pointed out:

HaraldKlak wrote:

I am basing it on the Fear rules on page 563:

CRB wrote:

Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect, and a failed roll means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Frightened: Characters who are frightened are shaken, and in addition they flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. They can choose the paths of their flight. Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want. If the duration of their fear continues, however, characters can be forced to flee if the source of their fear presents itself again. Characters unable to flee can fight (though they are still shaken).

Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.

Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.

You can use Remove fear even when under the effect of fear effects if you are far enough from the creature that panicked you.

Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?

Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.

An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.

An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.

Sounds like Vital Strike needs some errata then. Because if an attack action could be any action in which you attack, and isn't specifically defined as a standard action, then people are using the ruling on Vital Strike to justify why other types of attack actions cannot be done in a full attack action.

Ultimate Magic. If I might blather on about it for a moment, it's a great feat. I gave it to ** spoiler omitted ** in my campaign to subvert the "counterspell-everything" abjurer PC. Good stuff.

Ah... that's right. It's all coming back to me.

What you have here, to a certain extent, is the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. At the time I found out about the Spellsong feat, the Inner Sea World Guide was already done and it was a bit of frustrating soul searching for me to come to terms with the fact that my team and the design team stepped on each other's toes.

The design team doesn't always keep track of what sorts of feats and other rules elements we introduce in the various Adventure Paths and Campaign Setting and Player Companion books. Likewise, we who work on those lines aren't always privy to content going into the hardcovers. It's an unfortunate truth, alas, that exists because we're producing more content in any one month than any one person can be familiar with in a month.

As a result, you have two VERY similar feats—Harmonic Spell and Spellsong. They don't interact all that well because the people who designed them didn't know the other was doing a similar feat (although... in my defense... Harmonic Spell's been a feat for years—it was first introduced way back in Pathfinder 12, a year or so before the Pathfinder RPG even came out).

So... the best way to handle this is to just pick one of the two and NOT use the other.

Harmonic Spell does not allow you to conceal spellcasting at all, so that in and of itself is a reason to take Spellsong.

Spellsong doesn't let you switch bardic performances as a swift action, so that's a reason to take Harmonic Spell (of course, this ability becomes outdated once a bard gets high enough level to switch performances as a swift action on her own).

If you have BOTH feats... if you cast a spell while performing, Harmonic Spell essentially lets you extend your performance uses per day by 1 round, while Spellsong does not—Spellsong lets you spend bardic performance rounds to extend a spell duration instead.

Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?

Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.

An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.

An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.

Sounds like Vital Strike needs some errata then. Because if an attack action could be any action in which you attack, and isn't specifically defined as a standard action, then people are using the ruling on Vital Strike to justify why other types of attack actions cannot be done in a full attack action.

Sounds like instead I'm the one who's confused. I recommend taking this question over to the rules forums and ignoring what I've been saying in this case.

Wait, what? So then is it an editing error where Sunder says it must be made as part of an Attack Action (same term as in Vital Strike)?

Vital Strike is, apparently, the one that's poorly written. I don't know why the design team hasn't just put into that feat's description that it's a standard action to use it.

An attack action is still an attack action, whether or not you make it as part of a full attack or a standard attack (which Vital Strike SPECIFICALLY requires) or an attack of opportunity or whatever.

An attack action is merely you taking an action to attack.

Okay, now I'm confused. A few months ago, you said that an Attack Action was "a specific kind of standard action". Did something change between then and now? Am I just misunderstanding you? Is it really butter in spite of my disbelief? Why is the sad cebu sad? Okay, those last two questions might not matter, but I'm very confused about the rest.

Or perhaps I'm the one who's confused, which considering the 3 to 5 hours of sleep I've been getting nightly over the last few weeks due to the work schedule stress would make a lot of sense.

So James if I keep saying the words Neothilid, Intellect devourer, drow, Duergar, Vegepygmy, trogolodyte will it increase your desire for a darklands AP? If you want I'll handle Mona, you take McCreary, and we just need to find 2 people to hold down Spicer and Daigle and we can get this thing done.

No. My desire for such an AP is already at Maximum Level.

Is it on the 2 to 3 year list or the vague idea list?

Vague Idea list.

So you admit that one is a vague idea, and won't admit which list the Numeria one is on. WOOT! Numeria AP by 2015!!! ;)

We had a discussion abot fear and remove fear in another section fot eh forum and this was pointed out:

HaraldKlak wrote:

I am basing it on the Fear rules on page 563:

CRB wrote:

Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect, and a failed roll means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.

Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.

Frightened: Characters who are frightened are shaken, and in addition they flee from the source of their fear as quickly as they can. They can choose the paths of their flight. Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want. If the duration of their fear continues, however, characters can be forced to flee if the source of their fear presents itself again. Characters unable to flee can fight (though they are still shaken).

Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.

Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes

...

Huh. That sentence is under Fear but not under the separate Fear conditions in the glossary. That's not the way my DM's been running it, obviously. We can't do anything but run away for 2d4 rounds, and then have to spend the same amount of time running back, thus missing the whole encounter.

Thanks for the response James! I actually find the two feats to be quite different an not overlapping at all, except for one really sweet (potential) interaction. That's exactly what feats should be doing, design-wise, in my opinion... so don't beat yourself up about the perceived miscommunication!

Unfortunately, I didn't quite get an answer to my two most important questions:

Does (concealing a spell with) Spellsong count as a performance (i.e. can you cast via Spellsong while maintaining inspire courage or any other performance ability)? Does it take a Standard/Move/Swift action to start, as other peformances do? Or is it just a feat effect fueled by performance rounds that takes no action to start and can be used at the same time as other performances?

If I have both feats, and I'm spending a performance round for a concealed casting via Spellsong, wouldn't that satisfy the conditions for casting during performance from Harmonic Spell? That's the combo I'm hoping to use, but as you can see, the intent of Spellsong isn't quite clear. On its own, it's a cool feat, though.

I know you love the bards, so I hope I'm not taxing your patience here.

Does (concealing a spell with) Spellsong count as a performance (i.e. can you cast via Spellsong while maintaining inspire courage or any other performance ability)? Does it take a Standard/Move/Swift action to start, as other peformances do? Or is it just a feat effect fueled by performance rounds that takes no action to start and can be used at the same time as other performances?

Concealing a spell counts as spellcasting, not a performance. It's a feat effect fueled by performance rounds.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

If I have both feats, and I'm spending a performance round for a concealed casting via Spellsong, wouldn't that satisfy the conditions for casting during performance from Harmonic Spell? That's the combo I'm hoping to use, but as you can see, the intent of Spellsong isn't quite clear. On its own, it's a cool feat, though.

Yes, but you'd still have to spend an extra round of performance to cast the spell hidden, since casting a spell hidden is a feat effect, not a performance effect.

So, I just grabbed Blood of Fiends and there's no mention at all of the feat Fiendish Heritage, instead it mentions GM discretion on the alternate spell like abilities list and just says that a player can choose an alternate Tiefling Heritage on the heritage pages. Is that feat no longer necessary to grab an alternative fiendish heritage? I mean, that would make sense, since otherwise you have about half a book that you need a feat to access, but then what happens with regards to the feat?

1) If we haven't statted a weapon up yet, then yes, it would be pretty unusual.

2) Not if he's willing to pay the extra costs.

3) None you can buy at a shop, but I suspect there might be a few hidden somewhere in vaults or owned by powerful NPCs or the like.

3a) Same as 3 above... it could exist, but it's something that I would rather see show up as part of an adventure rather than in a player's companion type product.

1) Double-bladed wandsword, self-rotating pepperpistols (2 of them) and wayfinder-pocketwatch are bossfight rewards for my players (if they survive encounter with the BBG, of course). They should be mid-way to 8th level after that fight, and those items will not be enchanted beyond +1 bonuses, in the case of the sword, and those unusual abilities in the case of pistols and the wayfinder. Do you consider that too small rewards for their level (for the standard Golarion game)?

2) I am giving my players an opportunity to play more powerful races using the rules presented in the Drow article in Bestiary 1: If they roll natural 1 on d20, they can play an advanced version of the race. Humans can play Azlanti, Elves can play an Elven Noble (using similar stats as Drow Noble) and so forth. So far, I had only one player roll natural 1. My question is: do you consider this being over the top and/or broken? (All the players are OK with the small chance of playing more powerful race and no one is jealous of the guy who made the roll.)

So, I just grabbed Blood of Fiends and there's no mention at all of the feat Fiendish Heritage, instead it mentions GM discretion on the alternate spell like abilities list and just says that a player can choose an alternate Tiefling Heritage on the heritage pages. Is that feat no longer necessary to grab an alternative fiendish heritage? I mean, that would make sense, since otherwise you have about half a book that you need a feat to access, but then what happens with regards to the feat?

That feat is no longer necessary. Which is why we didn't reprint it. Said feat was probably never really necessary to begin with, but that was on the eve of the game's launch and worries about level adjustments and the like were still fresh in folks's head.

If you're still playing a character who has that feat, and if your GM is kind-hearted, he'll let you pick a different one, I would guess.

1) Double-bladed wandsword, self-rotating pepperpistols (2 of them) and wayfinder-pocketwatch are bossfight rewards for my players (if they survive encounter with the BBG, of course). They should be mid-way to 8th level after that fight, and those items will not be enchanted beyond +1 bonuses, in the case of the sword, and those unusual abilities in the case of pistols and the wayfinder. Do you consider that too small rewards for their level (for the standard Golarion game)?

2) I am giving my players an opportunity to play more powerful races using the rules presented in the Drow article in Bestiary 1: If they roll natural 1 on d20, they can play an advanced version of the race. Humans can play Azlanti, Elves can play an Elven Noble (using similar stats as Drow Noble) and so forth. So far, I had only one player roll natural 1. My question is: do you consider this being over the top and/or broken? (All the players are OK with the small chance of playing more powerful race and no one is jealous of the guy who made the roll.)

1) I consider the concept of a double-bladed rotating wandsword pepperpistol wayfinder in and of itself silly, so I'd never get to the point where they'd be "appropriate or not for a character's level as a reward."

2) I don't consider it being broken at all if the players are okay with the fact that some characters will be marginally better than others.

So, Mr. Jacobs, will you say that Jade Regent did a good job with capturing the oriental feel it was meant to?

another question: When do we get to see a new module written by you? they are always the best...

Yes, I think Jade Regent did a great job at capturing the Asian feel.

This year's free RPG adventure, "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun," was written by me, in fact. So... within a month! I might end up writing one of the adventures for the AP coming up after Shattered Star... we'll see!